Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with regard to recent protests in Kinshasa and in the eastern provinces of that country.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I refer the noble Lord to my previous response of 12 February (HL4593). During the recent period of unrest in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) officials at our Embassy in Kinshasa were in regular contact with the DRC authorities, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) issued a press statement on 20 January urging calm and restraint and calling on the DRC government and Parliament to listen to the concerns of protesters.Our Ambassador was in contact with the Government of DRC at the highest levels and with opposition politicians throughout the protests. He urged for a consensus on electoral reform to be built that would help to forge the path to free, fair and peaceful elections in 2016. On 25 January a revised electoral law was passed, and on 26 January an FCO press statement welcomed the revised electoral law which sought to address some of the protestors’ concerns. We are pleased that calls for an end to violence were heeded.

Syria

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they last had contact with the Assad regime in Syria.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Since the closure of our Embassy in Damascus on 1 March 2012 we have only had limited contact with the Assad regime in relation to consular matters.In order to provide appropriate support to British Nationals we have had occasional contact with the regime on consular cases where necessary, including one exceptional meeting with the Syrian Consul in Beirut and a call to the Syrian Embassy during 2013. Other consular contact has included letters from Foreign Office Ministers and formal diplomatic notes passed to the Syrian government through our Embassy in Paris. On a day-to-day basis we have an informal agreement with the Czech Embassy who are able to contact Syrian officials on our behalf to convey letters and Note Verbales on consular matters.

Cyprus

Lord Kilclooney: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of a proposed signing later in February 2015 of a military co-operation agreement between the governments in Moscow and Nicosia; whether the United Kingdom, as a guarantor power for Cyprus, was consulted; and what assessment they have made of the impact of any military agreement on a settlement in the island of Cyprus.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We are aware of recent media reports speculating on the terms of a military agreement between Russia and the Republic of Cyprus (ROC), and the subsequent statements by the ROC government refuting these claims. The UK remains fully engaged on issues of regional security with the ROC, while recognising that it is for the ROC to decide which bilateral agreements to sign. We would not be able to assess the impact on the prospects for a lasting settlement until the details of any such agreements were known. The EU has sent a united message to Russia that its actions in Ukraine are in flagrant breach of international law, and all member states, including Cyprus, unanimously agreed to impose measures against Russia in response to these actions. It is important that we maintain that EU unity.

Attorney General

Hunting: Prosecutions

Lord Blencathra: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought forward a prosecution against Terrence Potter and Paul Whitehead of the Lunesdale Hunt.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: There is no plan to investigate the basis upon which this prosecution was brought.   The prosecution was brought following an investigation by North Yorkshire Police into the alleged commission of a wildlife crime. The two defendants were originally charged by the police to appear in Court on 5 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) subsequently undertook a review of the case, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and determined, firstly, that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, that it was in the public interest to prosecute.   As the allegations were denied, the case was listed for trial before York Magistrates’ Court on 21 January 2015. On the day of trial, two key prosecution witnesses who produced video evidence of the offence were unavailable to attend court. The CPS had previously made an application to adjourn and reschedule the trial. Due to an administrative failing this application was made very close to the trial date and it was refused by the court. The trial then took place in the absence of these two witnesses and without their evidence being heard. The Court found no case to answer against each defendant.

Hunting: Prosecutions

Lord Blencathra: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scrutiny the Crown Prosecution Service makes of any evidence presented to them by the League Against Cruel Sports alleging breaches of the Hunting Act 2004 before deciding to prosecute.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes following an investigation and referral of a case by the police. If the police charge an offence under the Hunting Act 2004 without a request for advice, a crown prosecutor reviews the case following charge. Each case will be reviewed in accordance with the Full Code Test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Where the evidential and public interest stages of the Full Code Test are met, then the CPS will robustly prosecute.   The prosecutor must consider whether each piece of evidence is admissible, reliable and credible – this would include being satisfied that it was lawfully obtained. Evidence provided by the League against Cruel Sports would be looked at in the same way as any other evidence.

Hunting: Prosecutions

Lord Blencathra: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to investigate the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against Mr Liddle of the Melbreak Hunt, charges which were then dropped.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Cumbria Constabulary charged Mr Liddle with hunting a wild mammal with dogs (contrary to Sections 1 and 6 of the Hunting Act 2004) and allowing dogs to be dangerously out of control (contrary to Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). This followed an incident on 9 March 2014 when members of the public witnessed a fox being killed by a pack of hounds on land near Buttermere. The police were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Liddle and issued a postal requisition on 6 June 2014. These offences fall within the category of offences where the charging decision rests with the police. Mr Liddle appeared at Workington Magistrates Court on 27 June 2014 and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Following receipt of all the evidential material from the police, the case was reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service’s North West Area Wildlife Crime Lead. He applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors and determined that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction having considered all of the required elements of the offence. Following consultation with Cumbria Constabulary the case was discontinued on 10 September 2014. The Crown Prosecution Service did not, therefore, bring charges against Mr Liddle. The case was brought to an end after the full evidential material was reviewed.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

European Union

Baroness Quin: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders.   It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything it does.   (1) Staff time Between 2012-2013, the Balance of Competences Review Team in the Department was staffed by the equivalent of one Grade 7 (salary range £47, 545 - £55,882), and one intern (salary range £23,869 – £27, 281) dedicating 100% of their time to the review to project manage 7 BIS led reports and 1 joint report. Between 2013 – 2014 this was reduced to one Grade 7. Between 2012 – 2014 one Deputy Director (salary range £62,000 - £117,800) dedicated 20% of their time as the senior reporting officer for the review. All other work on the review was allocated, according to need, to existing staff within the Department. Therefore, providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.   (2) Printing costs   Printing and publication for the 8 Departmental reports, was coordinated centrally but paid for by the Department, with the exception of the Single Market Report which was printed in-house. Printing and publication costs for all 8 reports totalled £32,821.94. The costs for all 32 reports was £133, 053(3) Running of Engagement events   Each policy team in the Department held a wide range of engagement events over the 2 years; the department did not incur any costs for the running of these events. The facilities for hosting these events were either provided by other Government Departments or by business partners or were held on department premises at no extra cost to the department.(4) WitnessFrom centrally held figures, we understand that across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00.   (5) Publicity   The Department did not incur any publicity costs as we published the reports and the call for evidence via email, social media and the Government website.   (6) All other associated costs   Between 2012 – 2014 the Department commissioned research and analysis to form part of the literature review to provide the reports with legal analysis to ensure the reports were neither too analytical or too speculative and political, but instead adhere to the agreed treaties. The cost for all 8 reports was £108, 738.28.   Department officials incurred some additional associated costs due to travel to meetings and stakeholder events in the UK. Some officials also incurred costs related to events in Brussels. We estimate that the additional travel costs incurred amounted to less than £300.

European Union

Lord Tugendhat: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to UK Export Finance and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I refer my Noble Lord to the answer as given for HL4840

European Union

Lord Tugendhat: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to UK Trade and Investment and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I refer my Noble Lord to the answer as given for HL4840

Department for International Development

Private Infrastructure Development Group

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the average amount of Department for International Development money deposited in the Private Infrastructure Development Group bank account between January 2012 and February 2015; and why.

Baroness Northover: The total funds deposited in the PIDG between 2012 and 2014 was £360 million. Further information on DFID funding to PIDG is available at http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203232/ .

Department for Education

Schools: Defibrillators

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 3 February (HL4358), what assessment they have made of the placement of defibrillators in schools in Liverpool; and whether there are plans to increase the number of defibrillators in schools across the country.

Lord Nash: The Department for Education is encouraging schools to purchase automated external defibrillators (AEDs) as part of their first aid equipment. To help them do this, on 26 November 2014, we announced new arrangements to allow schools to purchase AEDs at a competitive price. This is the result of a unique agreement between the Department for Education and the Department of Health, enabling NHS Supply Chain to purchase devices in batches from approved framework suppliers via a reverse auction process. The discount achieved on each batch is then passed on to schools through a reduced unit price.   The Department for Education does not collect information about the placement of defibrillators in schools but is able to provide details of which schools have purchased an AED under the arrangements described above.   To help schools in considering whether to purchase a defibrillator, the Department has also published advice on installing and maintaining AEDs on school premises. This has been developed drawing on the expertise of NHS ambulance services and voluntary and community sector organisations.

Health Education: Sex

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure that consent and emotional safety in relationships are given enough emphasis with sexual and relationship education.

Lord Nash: Education has an important role to play in encouraging young people to build healthy relationships, and to identify those relationships which are unhealthy. The statutory sex and relationships education (SRE) guidance, which schools must have regard to when teaching SRE, makes clear that teaching should ensure young people develop positive values and a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgments and behaviour. This is particularly relevant to sexual consent and the guidance makes clear that all young people should understand how the law applies to sexual relationships.   We have commissioned the PSHE Association to produce guidance for teachers on teaching about consent, which will be published shortly.

Ministry of Justice

Approved Premises

Lord Bradley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have undertaken of approved premises in England.

Lord Faulks: We have not made a specific assessment of Approved Premises. As part of the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme, we decided that Approved Premises should remain within the National Probation Service because of their focus on the supervision of high- and very high-risk offenders. That is because, for certain high risk offenders who have completed the custodial part of the sentence, requiring them to reside in an Approved Premises delivers more effective public protection than could be provided in alternative accommodation elsewhere in the community. A review of Approved Premises operations is now under way. Its aim is to promote greater consistency of practice and improve the efficient use of resources in the Approved Premises estate.

Home Office

Cats: Theft

Lord Black of Brentwood: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken in response to allegations of the theft of almost 300 cats in the Suffolk area between June and December 2014.

Lord Bates: Allegations of criminal behaviour should be reported to the Suffolk Constabulary so they can decide whether to instigate a criminal investigation. The Government has introduced Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to ensure that police force priorities across England and Wales better reflect those of the communities they serve, and that the police respond effectively to crime committed in the local area.

*No heading*

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many police officers are dedicated to traffic policing; and how has this changed in the last 10 years.

Lord Bates: The table provided shows the total number and proportion of full-time equivalent police officers within the traffic function in England and Wales, as at 31 March 2005 to 31 March 2014. Number  Total 20057,10420066,51120076,41220086,29920095,71220105,63520115,32920124,86820134,67520144,356 Proportion of total police officers (%) Total 20055.020064.620074.520084.420094.020103.920113.820123.620133.620143.4  1. This table contains full-time equivalent figures that have been presented to the nearest whole number.2. Traffic function includes staff who are predominantly employed on motor-cycles or in patrol vehicles for the policing of traffic and motorway related duties. This includes officers employed in accident investigation, vehicle examination,radar duties and those working with hazardous chemicals.3. Staff with multiple responsibilities (or designations) are recorded under their primary role or function. This may explain some variability between years.4. Figures have been confirmed by all police forces after collection and before publication each year. 



Table - HL4998 
(Excel SpreadSheet, 11.33 KB)

Northern Ireland Office

Terrorism: Northern Ireland

Lord Rogan: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on 4 February (HL4505), which individuals in the IRA/Sinn Fein received the 156 "on the run" letters for onward delivery.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Hallett report makes clear that the majority of the letters issued under the administrative scheme were sent via Gerry Kelly of Sinn Féin, accompanied by a covering letter.

Terrorism: Northern Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on 5 February (HL4534) regarding "on the runs", why it took until December 2012 for the Northern Ireland Office to implement the decision taken in August 2012 not to accept any new cases.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: No new cases were accepted by the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) after August 2012. The last letter sent by the NIO in December 2012 was to an individual whose case had been raised with the NIO before August 2012.

Terrorism: Northern Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on 5 February (HL4534) regarding "on the runs", what was the purpose of the scheme if it did not offer immunity, exemption or amnesty from prosecution; and whether they consider that the scheme complied with the Government’s equality obligations.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Lady Justice Hallett emphasised on a number of occasions in her report that the letters, however phrased, were not an amnesty. They were not a commitment by the State that individuals would not be prosecuted, whatever the strength of the case against them. They were only ever meant as statements of the facts, as they were believed to be at the time, as to whether or not an individual was wanted for questioning by the police.At paragraph 9.15 of her report, Lady Justice Hallett finds that there were no express or implied criteria in the scheme to exclude any particular category of individual. She found that the administrative scheme, properly implemented, was not unlawful.

Northern Ireland Government

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on 10 February (HL4725) relating to invitations to a briefing on 3 February about Northern Ireland, if such invitations were delivered why Lord Laird did not receive such communication; and why Lord Maginnis of Drumglass was invited only when he complained to the Northern Ireland Office; and whether they will supply a complete answer to the original question and list those Members of the House of Lords who were invited and explain why the question was not answered in full.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Invitations to the briefing for Peers on 3 February were delivered to the House of Lords by a Northern Ireland Office official on 23rd January.Invitations were issued to the following Peers, including Lord Laird and Lord Maginnis of Drumglass:The Lord AlderdiceRt Rev the Lord Bishop of Bath and WellsThe Lord BewThe Baroness Blood MBERt Hon the Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville CHThe Viscount Brookeborough DLThe Lord Browne of BelmontRt Hon the Lord Browne of LadytonRt Hon the Lord CarswellRt Hon the Lord Cope of BerkeleyThe Baroness CrawleyThe Lord DubsRt Rev the Lord Eames OMThe Lord EmpeyThe Lord Feldman of FrognalThe Lord German OBEThe Lord Glentoran CBE DLThe Baroness Harris of Richmond DLThe Lord Hay of BallyoreThe Baroness Healy of Primrose HillThe Lord HyltonRt Hon the Lord KilclooneyThe Lord King of BridgwaterThe Lord LairdThe Lord Lester of Herne Hill QCThe Lord LexdenThe Lord Lyell DLThe Lord Maginnis of DrumglassThe Lord McAvoyRt Hon the Lord MawhinneyRt Hon the Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC DLThe Lord MorrowThe Baroness O’Cathain OBEThe Baroness O’Loan DBEThe Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve CBE FBAThe Baroness Ramsay of CartvaleGeneral the Lord Ramsbotham GCB CBERt Hon the Lord Reid of CardowanThe Lord RoganRt Hon the Baroness Royall of BlaisdonThe Lord Shutt of GreetlandRt Hon the Baroness Smith of BasildonProfessor the Lord Smith of CliftonRt Hon the Lord Tebbit CHThe Lord Temple-MorrisRt Hon the Lord TrimbleThe Lord Willis of Knaresborough  The list has been compiled of Peers known to be from Northern Ireland or who have shown an interest in its affairs, primarily through Parliamentary business or correspondence.Any Peers not included on this list who have an interest in Northern Ireland Affairs are invited to contact the Northern Ireland Office to be added to future invitations.

Department for Culture Media and Sport

European Union

Baroness Quin: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders.It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does.Work on the Review was allocated according to need to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.The Department of Culture, Media and Sport paid £3,321.15 for printing and publication of the Culture, Tourism and Sport report.One engagement event for the Culture, Tourism and Sport report was held in Brussels and cost approximately £500. Other engagement events were held within the Department at no extra material cost.Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00. There was no cost for the publicity of the Culture, Tourism and Sport report, which utilised existing free social media and internet channels. There were no other associated costs.

LGBT People

Lord Smith of Finsbury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with British-based banks and other major companies which have outsourced customer services to overseas countries about the way in which enquiries from United Kingdom citizens who have entered into a civil partnership or same-sex marriage are handled.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Government has had no discussions with businesses on this specific issue. The Equality Act 2010 provides that service providers are not allowed to discriminate, harass or victimise service users because they have a ‘protected characteristic’ – which includes sex and sexual orientation, amongst others. The Act provides that, in some circumstances, employers can be liable for the acts of their employees or agents. Businesses are required to comply with the relevant provision of the Act applicable to them unless an exception in the Act applies.